1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 382,179,280; and (b) KRW 12,00,000; and (c) KRW 4,00,000 for Plaintiff C and Plaintiff D, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 21:30 on December 13, 2013, F driven a G low-est car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeded with the Plaintiff as the front part of the Defendant vehicle, without discovering A, who crosses the left-hand side from the right-hand side on the basis of the direction of the running of the Defendant vehicle at the J Hospital while driving a one-lane of the I stop located in JH at the right-hand speed.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as acute brupting blood (overboard), external brupted blood, brupted brue, and brushed brue of an unidentified brupt, and the brushed brue of the outer half part.

B. Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and Plaintiff D are children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 9 (including branch numbers for those with virtual numbers)

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle, and is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case

B. The limitation of liability, however, according to the aforementioned evidence and the facts admitted and the purport of the entire pleadings, Plaintiff A, despite being at the crosswalk in the vicinity of the instant accident site, was found to have entered the front of the instant Defendant vehicle in order to unauthorized crossing without permission while being placed a crosswalk at night. Such errors by Plaintiff A were caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage.

Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate, the defendant's liability is limited to 70% in consideration of these circumstances.

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff A was a drinking state at the time of the accident of this case, and that the plaintiff A's negligence was serious, but Eul's evidence 1.